R v Muhamad
The offence of materially contributing to insolvency by gambling was a strict liability offence, and strict liability was compatible with the presumption of innocence.
Facts
Mr Muhamad lost a large amount of money gambling in casinos, and was later made bankrupt. He was charged under section 362(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1986 with materially contributing to, or increasing the extent of, his insolvency by gambling. He argued that the prosecution should have to prove that he knew or was reckless as to whether his gambling would contribute to his insolvency, and that a strict liability offence would breach the presumption of innocence under article 6(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal upheld his conviction. Applying the criteria in Gammon, the offence was a regulatory offence concerned with protecting creditors, a matter of social concern, and the offence was relatively minor, so Parliament must have intended it to be one of strict liability. Strict liability did not breach article 6(2), which is concerned with the fairness of the procedure, not with the substantive elements of an offence, which are a matter for Parliament. This approach was later confirmed by the House of Lords in R v G [2008] UKHL 37.
Related cases on strict liability
- Alphacell Ltd v Woodward [1972] AC 824
- B (A Minor) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2000] 2 AC 428
- Callow v Tillstone (1900) 83 LT 411
- Cundy v Le Cocq (1884) 13 QBD 207
- Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney General of Hong Kong [1985] AC 1
- Harrow London Borough Council v Shah [1999] 3 All ER 302
- Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain Ltd [1986] 1 WLR 903
- R v G (2008) [2008] UKHL 37, [2009] 1 AC 92
Studying criminal law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
